Category: Word/Sacrament

Posted on

Eating and Drinking with Sinners

Toby Sumpter writes:

“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.” (Mt. 11:19)

We have said before that in one sense Advent occurs every Lord’s Day. Every Lord’s Day the Lord comes to His people in worship. One of the ways that God reminds us of this fact is through this meal. Jesus came the first time eating and drinking and fellowshipping with outcasts, and every week Jesus still comes through the power of the Spirit, eating and drinking and fellowshipping with sinners. This is how God came into the world in Jesus, and through the Spirit this is how Jesus continues His Advent among us. Our collective list of sins is very long and embarrassing. We are not respectable society.

And perhaps this gathering looks a little dangerous. A bunch of sinners and tax collectors eating and drinking together: like that’s a good idea. Or maybe it just looks really silly, a bunch of sinners gathered around drinking wine from thimbles and sharing little bits of bread. How is that potent or powerful? But wisdom is justified by her children.

Here is the feast of Wisdom, and as we eat in faith and joy, and as we live this Eucharistic thankfulness in our lives, God promises to justify this wisdom through us. We are the children of Wisdom, as we feast on Jesus, as we cling to Jesus, as He is our strength, our security, our identity, our everything. Then as the children of Jesus, the Wisdom of God is justified to the watching world. This silly feast is for us the glory of God because here we enact the justice and the mercy and the peace of God for the world. And God promises to use this little feast to draw us and all of history up to great and final Feast. So come in faith and with rejoicing.

Posted on

The Baptized Body by Peter Leithart

In light of current debates of Leithart’s Baptismal theology, here’s his latest work free on-line.

What does baptism do to the baptized? Nothing? Something? In this study, Peter Leithart examines this single question of baptismal efficacy. He challenges several common but false assumptions about God, man, the church, salvation, and more that confuse discussions about baptism. He aims to offer a careful and simple discussion of all the central biblical texts that speak to us about baptism, the nature of signs and rites, the character of the church as the body of Christ, and the possibility of apostasy. In the end, the author urges us to face up to the wonderful conclusion that Scripture attributes an astonishing power to the initiation rite of baptism.

{HT: Mark Horne}

Posted on

Baptismal Regeneration, Two-Kingdom Theology, and all that jazz!

Some qualifications need to be made. Perhaps I have come across as someone who detests the entire project of the Westminster West gang. Most days that’s how I wanna come across; but then on those 65 degree-days in Florida when the sun is shining brighter than usual and the breeze is more gentle than usual–in those days– I feel rather loving. 2KT (Two-Kingdom-Theology) gets a lot of the spiritual stuff right. Unlike the Southern Presby’s, the Lutheranos actually do talk about bread and wine, and baptism is not as scary to them.

In fact, I heard a sermon by a 2KT pastor, who began by stating that Protestants have an “unduly negative view of baptism.” In other words, we are always trying to qualify what baptism is. Protestants spend most of their time debating the mode and who should be baptized, but they spend little time talking about what baptism accomplishes. Now that’s the way to begin a sermon on baptism! This pastor  said that most pastors are so afraid that our view on baptism will sound like Rome that they simply avoid passages like “baptism now saves you” or “be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.” Amen and Amen.

Now they are speaking my language! They are stressing what I think needs to be stressed more and more, world without end. But then…

they go right back to their formulations. “But of course,” they say, “baptism is not regeneration.” The sign and seal are so deeply connected that for Peter it appears to be one and the same, but it is not. Oh, logic, where art thou? We do not want to sound like Rome; check. We do not want to sound biblical; check. But why can’t we just use biblical language and let the nachos fall where they may? Let the Southern Presbys live in their inconsistency. They’re used to it! Why do you all have to be so careful in not affirming what should be affirmed? How about trying this sometime: Baptism regenerates, but not all those regenerated truly live the baptized life. Some fall away and apostatize. They abandon the faith. These are brought into the historical, visible covenant, but they are ultimately not part of the eternal, eschatological covenant. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Posted on

Lost and Baptism

I have been watching through LOST from the very beginning. Currently I am on Season II. There was an interesting scene this evening in an episode entitled Water and Fire. Without delving into great detail, Charlie is having visions of water, baby, doves and angels. Because Charlie has a history of heroin addiction, the others in the island do not believe him. They believe–including the baby’s mother, Claire–that Charlie’s addiction is leading him to put little Aaron (the baby) in danger. Charlie’s explanation is quite different. He believes the baby is in danger and the way to protect the baby from danger is to baptize him. Water, doves and angels: all baptismal and gospel signs. Charlie’s theology is quite accurate, though his methods somewhat out of sorts. Baptism is indeed imagesthe beginning of a new life under the protection of Messiah, and united to Him we–baptized in the Triune Name–are protected by our shield and defender.

Posted on

Communion Meditation

People of God, we are members one of another; we are all partakers of Christ. We share a common family and a common heritage.  Calvin writes that this supper is “to exhort us to all holiness and innocence, inasmuch as we are members of Jesus Christ; and specially to exhort us to union and brotherly charity…” The word of God does that and this New Covenant meal does that as well. In bread, we see the body of Christ broken and put together by God himself, so He may be exalted above the heavens. In wine, we see the blood of Christ given for our transgressions. In wine, God remembers His promise to fill the nations with gladness.

Providence Church

Posted on

Douglas Wilson on Paedocommunion

But this agreement of mine to the principles involved should reveal to us a hidden assumption that is helping to drive this debate. This is the assumption that when very young children are taught to respond this way, we are simply training them, as you would a puppy, and not really educating them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The plastic nature of a child’s soul is thought to be such that you could tell them anything, and since they don’t know any better, this responsiveness of theirs cannot be known to be true faith. And since we cannot “know” it to be true faith, then we need to wait until their profession of faith is mature enough to cross-examine. We are bringing the logic of courtroom verification into the rearing of children. Nothing against courtroom verification in its place, but that’s not what we should be doing here. Christian nurture is more like breastfeeding than it is like grilling a hostile witness. (Wilson answering Lane Keister on Paedocommunion)

Posted on

Paedocommunion

Doug Wilson says:

Every Saturday night I ask my grandkids certain Sunday worship prep questions. Do you love God? Yes, they all yell. Are you baptized? Yes. Is Jesus in your heart? Yes. Will you take the Lord’s Supper tomorrow? Yes. Now no Reformed folk can really object to these sorts of personal questions without also objecting to the Heidelberg. “What is your only comfort in life and in death?” “That I . . .”

The reason for this controversy is that the following morning we act like we believed their answers. We do that by giving them the bread and wine. Now if you make them say these things, but then you refuse to believe the answers through the sacrament, then how can you expect them to believe the answers? You are just doing a catechism drill. You are insisting that they speak high and lofty words indeed. But at the end of the day, as we all know, “I’m just saying these things.” Nobody acts like they are true. “Why should I?”

Posted on

The Problem with CredoCommunion…

Simply, the Credo position is left with uncertainty and pure subjectivism on the matter. When you say some will be 6 years old, but others who grow up in covenant homes may be 12 (not to speak of some who wait until they are 18) before they get to such and such a point of reason and maturity to take the Lord’s Supper, then you have begun to do what Paul opposed in I Corinthians: to make classes of Christians; to categorize the body; to dis-unify the oneness of the Unbroken body of our Lord. So, this becomes very problematic indeed.

Posted on

Paedo or Credo Communion?

In following Lane Keister’s arguments against Paedocommunion, I continue to ask these sorts of questions:

Why does a simple, credible profession of faith have to be spoken in words? Why not with actions, signs or symbols? Why not with a gesture? Why learn the catechisms of the Reformed faith? Why not the Apostle’s Creed? Why not the Nicene Creed? How to define the gospel? Narrowly: Christ is Lord? Comprehensively: Lord, Messiah, Death, Burial, Resurrection, Ascension, Second Coming, etc.? What does being “ready” to partake of bread and wine mean? A,B,C or A,B,C & D?